Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 insaniak wrote:

I think that's reading a bit much into it. The Horus Heresy comparison is to do with the link between the backgrounds of HH and 40K, WHFB and AoS. It implies nothing about the actual miniatures or rules. Particularly since HH no longer uses the same ruleset as 40K.

And like the Horus Heresy, seeing those mythic heroes in action has an undeniable appeal, as does re-creating the glorious armies of a previous epoch

GW wants you to buy that swanky new Karl Franz on Deathwing model for your new Empire army, just like you bought Russ for your Heresy era Space Wolves.

Even if you disagree with my read on that sentence, consistent scaling and rules systems make sense in general. This isn't really an extrapolation of anything GW said, just what feels like common sense. You'd have to have some pretty strong arguments to convince me GW would spend a couple years on a product, only for the end result to not be compatible with AoS in any aspect beside background.

And let's face it, HH uses the old rules because Forge World a) doesn't have the resources to rebuild the system in line with the current 40K rules before the heat death of the universe ends it all, and b) they don't want to piss off people that bought expensive, faux leather bound bric... rule books.

 Lotus Corgi wrote:
I've been thinking about this a lot and here's a few of my ideas.

It's called Warhammer: The Old World. It mentions the mighty battles that shaped the old world. I think the new game will focus solely on the Old World and it's safe to assume we can rule out Nippon and Albion. The article makes parallels to HH...maybe we can expect a focus on historic, pivotal, MASSED battles that shaped the Old World and it's history. So just a few off the top of my head: Hel Fenn, Blackfire Pass, The Siege of Prauge, that sort of battle. So I expect Battle Set/Game Sets that feature two or more armies paired up to represent a historic battle between two powers. A rule book will also accompany all this so if you can battle the different army groups against each other. I'm betting on a 'Ravening Hoards' type army book.

That... make a lot of sense. A curated approach.

Yeah, I can see that happening.

Going back to square basis tells me the rule set won't be consistent/compatible with AoS. Round vs square changes how measurements work, and if measurement is different, the whole system has to be adjusted.

 Lotus Corgi wrote:

It's called Warhammer: The Old World. It mentions the mighty battles that shaped the old world. I think the new game will focus solely on the Old World and it's safe to assume we can rule out Nippon and Albion. The article makes parallels to HH...maybe we can expect a focus on historic, pivotal, MASSED battles that shaped the Old World and it's history. So just a few off the top of my head: Hel Fenn, Blackfire Pass, The Siege of Prauge, that sort of battle. So I expect Battle Set/Game Sets that feature two or more armies paired up to represent a historic battle between two powers. A rule book will also accompany all this so if you can battle the different army groups against each other. I'm betting on a 'Ravening Hoards' type army book.

I expect the same, a Rulebook and a Ravening Hordes style book first.
than campaign/scenario books with the focus on a famous battle and the armies/faction that fought there, additional unit releases and maybe a themed boxed set.

Voss wrote:
Going back to square basis tells me the rule set won't be consistent/compatible with AoS. Round vs square changes how measurements work, and if measurement is different, the whole system has to be adjusted.

My guess is that they will make it so you can use round bases in it, especially if they want to retain cross-compatibility of old WHFB models that are now in AoS(like Dark Elf and Dispossessed stuff). I would guess that they release movement trays that you can put the round based models into a la War of the Ring movement trays.

That way they can get old players back while keeping AoS people in both pools.

If they do that, then the game they come out with will have to differ quite a bit from WHFB given the difference in footprint & frontage between an equivalent number of square based and round based models.

People forget that if you're making a rank & flank game where movement and maneuver are important, that sort of thing can matter a lot more than it seems.

TBH it just seems like people keep trying to come up with ways GW could design the game so that it's less appealing to what one assumes is the intended audience. I can only speak for myself of course, but as someone squarely(aha) within what appears to be that intended audience - what I want is a new WHFB. If it's a tweaked AoS, I'm not interested. If it's a LotR clone, I'm not interested. If it's a new ruleset entirely, then it better play in a substantially similar way to WHFB, or I'm not interested.

GW are surely aware that sentiment isn't exactly uncommon, and Orctober aside their modern marketing machine hasn't done anything to make me think they'd explicitly appeal to WHFB fans with the teaser and announcement only to then turn around and pull the rug out by making something that has basically nothing to do with square bases or WHFB.

 Yodhrin wrote:
If they do that, then the game they come out with will have to differ quite a bit from WHFB given the difference in footprint & frontage between an equivalent number of square based and round based models.

People forget that if you're making a rank & flank game where movement and maneuver are important, that sort of thing can matter a lot more than it seems.

TBH it just seems like people keep trying to come up with ways GW could design the game so that it's less appealing to what one assumes is the intended audience. I can only speak for myself of course, but as someone squarely(aha) within what appears to be that intended audience - what I want is a new WHFB. If it's a tweaked AoS, I'm not interested. If it's a LotR clone, I'm not interested. If it's a new ruleset entirely, then it better play in a substantially similar way to WHFB, or I'm not interested.

GW are surely aware that sentiment isn't exactly uncommon, and Orctober aside their modern marketing machine hasn't done anything to make me think they'd explicitly appeal to WHFB fans with the teaser and announcement only to then turn around and pull the rug out by making something that has basically nothing to do with square bases or WHFB.

Why would it need to differ? All they have to do is take into account the changes they made with AoS base sizes and release rectangular "crossover" trays of the appropriate width. So a goblin sized "crossover" unit tray would have slots for 5 25mm round bases in X rows and they'd ship the new Old World goblin units with 25mm squares (crossover units would have 25mm squares and rounds). A unit of Orc Boys would ship with 32mm squares (or a combo of round and square) and the new trays would hold 5x32mm rounds. No issue from a rules standpoint, it could run exactly as whatever edition of WHFB they decide to use as a base (assuming they even go this route).

The only problem is people with old armies having to rebase, but we know they don't really care about that (either the annoyance, or actually enforcing the changes). If you want to be super legal, all you'd have to do is put your 20mm models on a slightly wider 125 square tray (just add a little decoration/grassy border) and you're golden. And its not like anyone was playing without trays, anyway.

 Yodhrin wrote:
GW are surely aware that sentiment isn't exactly uncommon, and Orctober aside their modern marketing machine hasn't done anything to make me think they'd explicitly appeal to WHFB fans with the teaser and announcement only to then turn around and pull the rug out by making something that has basically nothing to do with square bases or WHFB.

Serious question - do you consider square bases to be an integral, indispensable element of WFB?

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
GW are surely aware that sentiment isn't exactly uncommon, and Orctober aside their modern marketing machine hasn't done anything to make me think they'd explicitly appeal to WHFB fans with the teaser and announcement only to then turn around and pull the rug out by making something that has basically nothing to do with square bases or WHFB.

Serious question - do you consider square bases to be an integral, indispensable element of WFB?

Can you rank up with round bases? Was the first thing that got changed by the move from WHFB to AoS the bases?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Can you rank up with round bases?

Yes?



Yes.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Can you rank up with round bases?

Yes?



Yes.

Except no? Not really? You can't really determine facing all that well, and they don't really stay in formation if you move them around.
Can you name a rank and file wargame that uses round bases, that don't require trays or similar objects to get that square frontage? Because Hail Caesar, Pike and Shotte and Black Powder uses square bases.
Conquest is an interesting case in that the models are on round bases, but in-game you place them in square bases that have an indentation. It would seem that you do need some sort of square base for a wargame that revolves around rank and files.

You can play Fantasy with all units that use 25mm in AoS using 25mm squares and 32mm using hyphotetical 32mm squares, etc... and it would change nothing.
This "goblins in fantasy used 20mm so if they use 25mm in the new game it cant work" dont make much sense to me.

Well, yeah, they'll just have a bigger foot print. As long as its a square its fine.

Remember all the wild speculation after the End Times, before AOS? I have to laugh at how comically wrong a lot of people were with their predictions about the new game. So I'm going to go on record with my first predictions for "TOW", and look forward to be amused when none of this turns out to be accurate at all. Without further ado:

Since "square bases" is basically the only thing they're telling us at this point, bases are obviously going to be square. Which means rank and file regiments, wheeling, flank charges, all that good stuff. Warhammer as we've always known it, essentially. Though obviously with all-new rules to make the game less clunky than it used to be. With all the emphasis on this being a time of legends ("the Horus Heresy of AOS"), I can see this new game becoming quite hero-centric, allowing GW to revisit classic characters with a bunch of epic new centerpiece models.

 

Unit sizes are going to be smaller than they were in Warhammer 8th. Obviously. Nobody can be expected to paint 100 miniatures simply to get started, let alone when you consider the prices and detail levels of citadel miniatures these days. Smaller regiments of 5-20 minis will be the norm.

The miniature range will initially be a combination of brand new and pre-existing models. Not all of the original Fantasy-line will be critically dated in three years' time. Stuff like Empire Greatswords, Dwarf Longbeards, Witch Elves etc. will still hold up fairly well and will be carried over.

 

As with previous editions of Warhammer, the updating of the miniature range will simply have to start somewhere. A starter box of new minis will contain two factions to get the ball rolling, and if I let my heart do the predicting, those two factions are going to be Bretonnia and Tomb Kings. Just imagine what a statement it would be to reintroduce the Old World setting with those two armies. ("This is what you wanted!! / This is the Old World, where non-original IP remains king!")

As implied above, the miniature scale will remain the same as before. Now that they've let the cat out of the bag and promised a return to the Old World, Warhammer veterans all over the world are tearfully rejoicing at the prospect of finally being able field their cherished Old World armies again. In that regard, changing the scale and forcing everyone to buy new minis (of a size that might not be of interest to many) would disappoint a lot of the people this news looks meant to appeal to.

Now come on, GW -- Suprise me!

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Can you name a rank and file wargame that uses round bases, that don't require trays or similar objects to get that square frontage? Because Hail Caesar, Pike and Shotte and Black Powder uses square bases.

I can't, but I don't have to. Trays exist for a reason and that reason is that moving large blocks of ranked models without them is pure torture and everyone who played WFB or historicals would use them anyway.

You don't need square bases to rank up models. Trays do that for you.

If it's ranks'n'flanks (please gork make it so) I'm hoping they go for a "here is the unit movement tray, arrange the models as you wish" approach.

However. Main thing. It's coming back. They've realised they can't write it out of the background.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

I can't, but I don't have to. Trays exist for a reason and that reason is that moving large blocks of ranked models without them is pure torture and everyone who played WFB or historicals would use them anyway.

You don't need square bases to rank up models. Trays do that for you.

That's over exaggerating the problem a bit. I never used movement trays, and never saw a need for them. Unless you're playing on a rough surface or moving through terrain, moving units was generally as simple as just pushing the rear rank. Trays were a convenience, nothing more, and they were only a convenience if you never wanted to change the formation of your unit.

Movement trays for round bases are a nice workaround when you find yourself with round bases that need to rank up... but are a horrible way to design a system from the ground up, both aesthetically and (unless you go the KoW 'fixed unit size and shape' approach (Ugh)) practically.

What I like about FW's HH rules is how free they are in the sense they push you to convert and try things, like the Brutes entry in the militia or somethig like that, it even says "You can use this to represent all kind of strong figthers, not only ogryns, maybe tamed alien lizards, robots, etc..."
I hope the same philosophy comes back here. A little of fresh air with the No model No rules

 insaniak wrote:

 His Master's Voice wrote:

I can't, but I don't have to. Trays exist for a reason and that reason is that moving large blocks of ranked models without them is pure torture and everyone who played WFB or historicals would use them anyway.

You don't need square bases to rank up models. Trays do that for you.

That's over exaggerating the problem a bit. I never used movement trays, and never saw a need for them. Unless you're playing on a rough surface or moving through terrain, moving units was generally as simple as just pushing the rear rank. Trays were a convenience, nothing more, and they were only a convenience if you never wanted to change the formation of your unit.

Movement trays for round bases are a nice workaround when you find yourself with round bases that need to rank up... but are a horrible way to design a system from the ground up, both aesthetically and (unless you go the KoW 'fixed unit size and shape' approach (Ugh)) practically.

Trying to put two units of 20 models in 20mm in combat in fantasy without movement traits was an effort in futility.
Also, what is the problem for movement traits for round bases? It works perfectly fine both aesthetically and gaming wise for the game of Parabellum and ASoFaI

 insaniak wrote:

 His Master's Voice wrote:

I can't, but I don't have to. Trays exist for a reason and that reason is that moving large blocks of ranked models without them is pure torture and everyone who played WFB or historicals would use them anyway.

You don't need square bases to rank up models. Trays do that for you.

That's over exaggerating the problem a bit. I never used movement trays, and never saw a need for them. Unless you're playing on a rough surface or moving through terrain, moving units was generally as simple as just pushing the rear rank. Trays were a convenience, nothing more, and they were only a convenience if you never wanted to change the formation of your unit.

Movement trays for round bases are a nice workaround when you find yourself with round bases that need to rank up... but are a horrible way to design a system from the ground up, both aesthetically and (unless you go the KoW 'fixed unit size and shape' approach (Ugh)) practically.

I only ever played on fully textured tables. Trays were mandatory.

And I'm not sure what's objectively horrible about a system that requires trays.

Well its either going to be trays, or boxes of extra square bases. I cant see GW repacking all the WHFB compatible models that now come with rounds.

Basing aside I wonder how this new project will effect any updates of the AoS factions that are still largely made of legacy models? Might GW hold back for example new Skaven or Seraphon/Lizardmen until its release? Or could they allow AoS to do the heavy lifting on those army's and instead concentrate on things that are undeniably WHFB like Brets and Tomb Kings?

It will also be interesting to see if there is any crossover with the newer AoS models based on WHF factions(like the Gloomspite or Sylvaneth) bleeding into the Old world.

They've said its 3 years away. They can surely do whatever they like in terms of repackaging.

Trays seems the most likely way to go if the minis are going to be cross-compatible but in that case stoking square base nostalgia seems like something that will bite them later on.

A lot of 30k models are not compatible / usable in 40k, so I don't know if that's really what they're after. They want you to have to buy More models, after all.

Too far out for me to really guess, but I'm just glad they're doing it

Tyel wrote:
They've said its 3 years away. They can surely do whatever they like in terms of repackaging.

Trays seems the most likely way to go if the minis are going to be cross-compatible but in that case stoking square base nostalgia seems like something that will bite them later on.

It's not three years away, that's just a ruse, before the end of 2020

 His Master's Voice wrote:

And I'm not sure what's objectively horrible about a system that requires trays.

I never said it was objectively horrible. It was a statement of opinion. Trays for round bases generally look awful, and trays of any kind are awkward for formation changes. Your experience and opinion may well be different.

Tyel wrote:
They've said its 3 years away. They can surely do whatever they like in terms of repackaging.

Not to mention new model releases between now and then.

Trays seems the most likely way to go if the minis are going to be cross-compatible but in that case stoking square base nostalgia seems like something that will bite them later on.

I doubt that cross-compatibility will be a primary focus even if the two games do wind up being the same scale. The only reason that old units still exist is AoS is that they couldn't replace the entire model range at once. The aesthetic differences between units from the two settings will become more pronounced as new models are released for each.

 kodos wrote:

 Lotus Corgi wrote:

It's called Warhammer: The Old World. It mentions the mighty battles that shaped the old world. I think the new game will focus solely on the Old World and it's safe to assume we can rule out Nippon and Albion. The article makes parallels to HH...maybe we can expect a focus on historic, pivotal, MASSED battles that shaped the Old World and it's history. So just a few off the top of my head: Hel Fenn, Blackfire Pass, The Siege of Prauge, that sort of battle. So I expect Battle Set/Game Sets that feature two or more armies paired up to represent a historic battle between two powers. A rule book will also accompany all this so if you can battle the different army groups against each other. I'm betting on a 'Ravening Hoards' type army book.

I expect the same, a Rulebook and a Ravening Hordes style book first.
than campaign/scenario books with the focus on a famous battle and the armies/faction that fought there, additional unit releases and maybe a themed boxed set.

I agree with this line of thinking.

Besides, it will let GW sell out in 30 minutes or less, more of those HOT Limited Edition One Run Only Boxed Games!

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
GW are surely aware that sentiment isn't exactly uncommon, and Orctober aside their modern marketing machine hasn't done anything to make me think they'd explicitly appeal to WHFB fans with the teaser and announcement only to then turn around and pull the rug out by making something that has basically nothing to do with square bases or WHFB.

Serious question - do you consider square bases to be an integral, indispensable element of WFB?

Actually I once argued that AoS was dumb and unnecessary because if GW wanted to shake things up they could have followed the LotR model and made the base Warhammer Fantasy game into a roundbase skirmish and then used roundbase movement trays with a War of the Ring style expansion.

But they didn't do that, they made AoS and canned WHFB, and so now for a lot of people yes, square bases are an integral part of WHFB, because they represent the game as it was prior to GW's act of vandalism and serve as a statement of intent when making an army that it's for WHFB and not AoS. Heck, I've even gone back to using squares for Mordheim to maintain consistency and so I stop getting "oh cool AoS models dude" remarks.

This product exists because of nostalgia. People at GW want to make it because of their nostalgia, and the moneymen are letting them do it because they know that appealing to ours will probably earn them a big ol' wadge of money. Kicking the whole thing off with "hey you guise, 'member square bases?" and then doing a roundbase game - movement trays or not - would be the kind of headdesk idiocy that modern GW's marketing rarely indulges in.

And to the folks saying it doesn't matter if they mix stuff - it really kinda does. The footprint of the regiments affects how many you can physically fit on the board. It affects how they move, how they turn. A 5x4 block of 20mm bases is not interchangeable with a 5x4 block of 25mm bases. Not if they expect it to play like WHFB and, again, why bother making a product specifically designed to appeal to WHFB diehards and then make it nothing like WHFB?

My expectation is movement trays for their current lineup, and a game very similar to AOS that is built around CCG elements, buffs, and very very basic rules that will not really do it for me.

Set in the old world.

 auticus wrote:
My expectation is movement trays for their current lineup, and a game very similar to AOS that is built around CCG elements, buffs, and very very basic rules that will not really do it for me.

Set in the old world.

There's always the risk that they could make something you enjoy

I wouldn't call making Fantasy but changing 20mm to 25mm as a completely different experience. Or that it would play different.
I understand the sentiment of wanting a company to respect the feeling of a beloved product when they relaunch it. But being so extreme with something as little, is the kind of thing horrible sit coms use to make fun of us nerds.

 Overread wrote:

 auticus wrote:
My expectation is movement trays for their current lineup, and a game very similar to AOS that is built around CCG elements, buffs, and very very basic rules that will not really do it for me.

Set in the old world.

There's always the risk that they could make something you enjoy

There will be 3 years of buildup. Nothing that GW will release will come close to the ideal game that will be in the fans' minds. It will have cheap, 20-model boxed sets, it will come with all the Old World armies and new, like Nippon, and it will be on the same bases as WFB, and it will even let you use the old models you have. Oh, and the lore will ignore End-Times and become a divergent, separate reality where ET and AoS never happened. All of this because GW loves Old World and wants to Do Right By The Loyal Fans.

There is absolutely no way whatever GW will eventually produce will match this wishlist, and every major divergence (let's say, no charge redirecting), will be seen as a personal slight against the Loyal Fans.

I have no clue why they advertised it so early, it goes against every basic marketing idea.

Cronch wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 auticus wrote:
My expectation is movement trays for their current lineup, and a game very similar to AOS that is built around CCG elements, buffs, and very very basic rules that will not really do it for me.

Set in the old world.

There's always the risk that they could make something you enjoy

There will be 3 years of buildup. Nothing that GW will release will come close to the ideal game that will be in the fans' minds. It will have cheap, 20-model boxed sets, it will come with all the Old World armies and new, like Nippon, and it will be on the same bases as WFB, and it will even let you use the old models you have. All of this because GW loves Old World and wants to Do Right By The Loyal Fans.

There is absolutely no way whatever GW will eventually produce will match this wishlist, and every major divergence (let's say, no charge redirecting), will be seen as a personal slight against the Loyal Fans.

I have no clue why they advertised it so early, it goes against every basic marketing idea.

Considering its been less than 3 days and people have already imagined the game in about half a dozen different scales (despite the fact that GW already showed a 28mm base and also said it was going to be to AoS what Horus Heresy is to 40K - which means SAME SCALE); I'm going to go out on a limb and say that when GW announced it wouldn't matter for those who will theory craft what it could be. Unless GW launched their first marketing release with the full game details people were always going to guess. Asides for which even if GW did release full details people would still argue that another approach is better (With variations of GW is doing ok with their idea all the way to "OMG its the worst idea ever I'm burning everything I own")

In the end GW has given this bit of news early to generate interest and hype as well as a warning shot to 9thage; Kings of War and all the rest. It's also a warning shot to Old World fans who might yet still have their old armies to hold onto them because in a few years something good might happen.

In the end most people seem pretty happy about it. Those who are negative are either those who are miss interpreting it as "It's the End of AoS" or "I hate GW Rules" which in fairness to GW if you hate GW rules then a new GW rules system doesn't really affect you as you're already not the target market.